Population and economic growth took off when humans switched from burning wood to burning coal. The net energy of useful output minus effort expended grew enormously. Now it's like we're going back to burning wood. The preferred energy output is variable and needs overbuilding while the input in the form of powerlines and batteries increases. If net energy gets too low the economy will unravel; that's the gist of the EROEI cliff theory which you can google.

We're seeing this happen with several green hydrogen projects failing to achieve liftoff. Both Whyalla and Pt Kembla were supposed to make green steel instead they've both relined their traditional blast furnaces that use coke. You have to wonder if we'll still have four aluminium smelters by 2030. Other forms of mineral value adding such as rare earths refining and battery making may not get far, all because the high energy input is unavailable. China has no qualms about green manufacturing, they simply use coal.

How much higher do people want ‘living standards’ to be than they already are in the First World, the ungrateful whingers!

Particularly as they don’t want to increase productivity! They just want more, and they want it given to them. Marxist-style governments are happy to give them more (as long as the money lasts, then they borrow), but at what cost? Tyranny is the cost. More and more control.

“Unreliables” will mean less production, and less money, but mass immigration and multiculturalism (no binding values) will do the same.

Import the Third World, become the Third World.

Unemployment is back to 4.5% (latest figures last night). But, still more immigrants come.

Geoff Carmody's attempt to argue that shifting focus towards renewables has a negative impact on productivity and reduces living standards fails to give weight to the broad economic, environmental, and social context of the transition.

The costs of renewable energy technologies are plummeting and already have lower operational costs. Add to this the fact that this transition period will eventually come to an end, and you have in front of you sources of energy production that actually support economic growth and improve living standards over time. Carmody further ignores the costs related to air and water pollution, climate change, and public healthIssues linked with fossil fuels.

Disposable income and GDP growth are incomplete indicators of economic welfare and the effects of energy policy. GDP measures the total value of goods and services produced in an economy; it doesn't include distribution of resources or how environmental factors actually affect the long-term stability of the economy or human health.

The argument that we don't have a comparative advantage in renewable energy production because we import much of the required equipment overlooks the abundance of sunlight and wind our landscape provides us the opportunity to harness. Carmody focuses on the wrong aspect of comparative advantage to make it look like Australia can't help lead the transition.

This is one lame way to argue renewables are a bad deal: ignoring long-term benefits and broader context of environmental and economic sustainability by relying on some cherry-picked economic data and simply ignoring global trends.

More conservative clap trap that this site is famous for.

I think renewables is a very good name for them.
They have to be RENEWED every 25 years !
It is a bit like the electric car idea.
They are promoted to reduce co2 emissions.
Well I have news for you, the reason the car companies are so keen
on them is because the oil companies announced they were getting out
of the oil industry !
The cost of finding new oil fields and then developing them is too expensive.
Shell & BP have announced it publicly, the others just mumble about it.

Renewables will suffocate the Planet with pollution before a single positive & actual renewing will occur !